Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Anita Poddar & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Duru Malik & Ors. - Respondents
CM(M) 429 of 2023 & CM APPL. 13050 of 2023
Decided On : 17-11-2023
Order VII Rule 14(3) - Civil Procedure - CPC - [Order 7 Rule 14 (3)] - The court allowed the plaintiff's application to bring on record additional documents at the stage of filing the replication, as the documents were already referred to in the plaint and the defendants had sufficient opportunity to deal with them in their written statement. The court found no undue delay in bringing the documents on record and dismissed the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenges the Trial Court's order allowing the plaintiff's application to bring on record additional documents at the stage of filing the replication in a civil suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the documents sought to be placed on record were already referred to in the plaint, and the defendants had sufficient opportunity to deal with them in their written statement. The Court also noted that the defendants would have an opportunity to file an affidavit of admission denial of the said documents.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Trial Court's decision to allow the plaintiff's application to bring on record additional documents at the stage of filing the replication was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that as the documents were already referred to in the plaint and the defendants had sufficient opportunity to deal with them, there was no undue delay in bringing the documents on record. The Court also noted that the defendants would have an opportunity to file an affidavit of admission denial of the said documents.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the pending application was disposed of. The interim order dated 20.03.2023 was vacated.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 13.02.2023 passed by ADJ, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court'), in CS DJ No. 612040/2016, titled as Duru Malik v. Suhagwati & Ors., allowing an application filed by the plaintiff i.e., Respondent No.1 under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') for bringing on record the additional documents.
1.1. The Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are defendant nos.2 and 3 respectively; the Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff before the Trial Court.
1.2. The Respondent No.1 has filed civil suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction on 09.12.2011 with respect to property no. 11/9, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.
1.3. The Trial Court vide order dated 13.02.2023 has opined that four (4) documents which the petitioners seeks to place on record at the stage of filing of the replication duly find mention in the plaint; and in these circumstances, the Trial Court has allowed the said application. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:
"The plaintiff has moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission of the Court to bring on record:
a. Copy of collaboration Agreement dated 10.01.1991 (already referred in Para 8 & 9 of the plaint).
b. Copy of D.R.C. Petition (already referred in Para 11 of the plaint).
c. Copy of Criminal complaint against Mr. Ajay Malik (already referred in Para 12 of the plaint).
d. Copy of the Written Statement filed on behalf of defendant no. 2, Mr. Ajay Malik & Mr. Gurvinder Singh in the matter of Prem Malik v. Sh. Gurvinder Singh & Ajay Malik (already referred in Para 17 of the plaint). According to the plaintiff no prejudice will be caused to the defendant as these documents are already referred to in the plaint.
The defendants have however objected to the filing of these documents as no explanation has been given by the plaintiff for producing the documents at this stage.
It is submitted that the present suit was filed in the year 2011 whereas previous suit wherein these documents are filed, in the year 2016. Even though, plaintiff was aware of these documents and was in possession of these documents. No efforts was made to file the same at an appropriate stage thereby causing prejudice to the defendants who did not get any opportunity to explain these documents and as such it is beyond the law of equity. Therefore, defendants pray that the application be dismissed.
Record perused.
The matter is at the stage for filing of the replication, admission denial and framing of issues.
As per the plaintiff, these documents are already filed in the connected case bearing no. 609869/2016, however, no explanation has been given by the plaintiff as to why these documents were not brought on record at the time of filing of the present plaint or at the time of filing of the amended plaint. However, these documents are already referred to in the plaint.
The present application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 CPC is allowed subject to the cost of Rs. 7,000/-to be paid to the defendants."
(Emphasis supplied)
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioners state that the Petitioners have till date not received a copy of the documents which the Respondent No.1 seeks to place on record in terms of the impugned order dated 13.02.2023.
2.1. He further states that since these documents were always in the custody of the Respondent, the same could not have been permitted to be placed on record at the stage of replication, as the Petitioners herein have been denied an opportunity to place their stand on record with respect to the said document.
3. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 states that the documents were duly filed with the application, which was filed on 25.03.2021. She states that the application remained pending for two (2) years and at no stage prior to this hearing, the Petition
The Court's decision emphasized that the documents sought to be placed on record were already referred to in the plaint, and the defendants had sufficient opportunity to deal with them, justifying th....
The main legal point established is the admissibility of additional documents in replication under Order 11 Rule 1 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the court's discretion to set aside an order....
The admissibility of additional documents and the allowance of such documents in civil suits and criminal proceedings.
The court's exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the finding that the existence and relevance of the invoices were not in dispute, and the defendant....
Matters of procedure should not hinder the dispensation of justice, and the relevance of documents for just and fair adjudication should be considered when deciding on applications to bring documents....
The trial court must afford due opportunities to the parties to contest the case and cannot adopt an extremely harsh and hyper-technical approach in rejecting applications for taking documents on rec....
While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not sitting as an appellate court over the orders passed by the subordinate courts.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
